"Qantas to cut flights and jobs"

[Comoman]

Qantas to scrap planes, jobs as fuel costs bite (http://www.watoday.com.au/business/qantas-to-scrap-planes-jobs-as-fuel-costs-bite-20110330-1cfa7.html)

EBA time maybe?

[astroboy55]

there is still growth in capacity, just a reduction in the amount of growth.

The fleet choices made by 'management' will bite them in the arse.

At least they are targeting these 'managers' in the latest round of job cuts.....
its not nice for anyone to lose their jobs, but at least joyce has recognised that there are other non critical areas where the fat can be trimmed, instead of going straight for the jugular of the flight crew!

Its time the public were educated on the cost of flying an aeroplane from A to B. It is ridiculous for people to expect an airfare for less than the cost of the parking at the airport, or the taxi to get there. The pressure on all airlines to remain profitable is immense, poor old VB are finding out the hard way, and I suspect QF wont be far behind.

Regulation of the industry again? Thoughts?

[gobbledock]

Seriously, how can anybody take Joyce at face value ? With the amount of money executive management are making with their salaries, bonus structure, share options AND their 'on the side consulting companies' anything he says should be treated with a wry smile.
This is standard management textbook reaction to industry pressures and economic challenges - scare the workforce. The day that Allan and friends put their honest open and clear paypackets on the table which includes evidence of a 'salary reduction' due to these unforeseen market conditions is the day that I start believing any of the verbal excrement that management spew forth.

[illusion]

Does this mean the "third fokker" might be scrapped???

[AlphaLord]

Qantas shares have risen 5 cents to $2.20 after the statement, but Roger Montgomery of Montgomery Investment Management says the company's share price is lower than a decade ago for good reason.
"Since 2001, the company has raised an additional $2.5 billion and borrowed an extra $2.4 billion and yet the profits today are barely improved on those of a decade ago," he observed.
"The company remains alive thanks to the beneficence of its shareholders and lenders. If the hat ever comes back empty, Qantas will have to return to government ownership or foreign ownership."

[Ken Borough]

their 'on the side consulting companies'

While I do not hold a brief for anyone in Qantas management, I find this allegation offensive. gobbledock should put up or shut up: he should withdraw the allegation if he can't substantaite it.

[The Green Goblin]

Ken,

Your "all over the planet" - should be "in la la land"

Funnily enough, I can't find the trail that used to exist on the web that linked some of the current management to a third party consulting company. And it's not Boston Consulting.

It used to even mention it on Jetstars website under the CEO blurb, although strangely it has disappeared.

I used to wonder if that was why JB didn't get the top gig. Simply he was not part of the club.

[yellowmellow]

It's amazing that this news comes after meeting with Boeing.. B787 is the perfect nightmare in a nightmare for QF.

LH SO Pilot doing LAX returns = $130K - <800 hours flying a year - away from home 100 days a year
LH FA doing LAX returns = $110K - <2000 hours flying a year - aprox 20 days away from home per 2 months
Manager (exec) = $98K working >40 hours a week

Work out the hourly rates!

[aveng]

‘‘We want to limit redundancies wherever possible. At this stage only management positions will be made redundant,’’ he said.

AJ looks around - thinks to himself "who's doing nothing" ah yes management!:ok:

[Oldmate]

Yellow, you could work it out from the time the staff member signs on at Mascot, until they sign off there. This is the time that they are away from families, friends and home. Also, most cabin crew on LA flights are QCCA these days, so nowhere near the figure you quoted.

[woollcott]

'on the side consulting companies'


Gladly supply proof:.................a well known manager closed the Apprentice training school (90 years of tradition!) and outsourced it to the local TAFE, claiming a $2 Million dollar saving.

Much later we find that he is on the board of that same TAFE.............

When other mangers were advised of this conflict of interest, not a single one took any action.............

[The Green Goblin]

LH SO Pilot doing LAX returns = $130K - <800 hours flying a year - away from home 100 days a year

100 days per year = 2400 hpy (hours per year)

130,000/2400 = $54 per hour


LH FA doing LAX returns = $110K - <2000 hours flying a year - aprox 20 days away from home per 2 months

120 days per year = 2880 hpy

110,000/2880 = $38 per hour


Manager (exec) = $98K working >40 hours a week

40*48 (subtracted 4 weeks leave) = 1920 hpy

98,000/1920 = $51 per hour (weekends home, public holidays, no risk etc etc)

Work out the hourly rates!

Yep.......you win :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Gnadenburg]

Regulation of the industry again? Thoughts?

The government delivered QF the australian aviation market on a plate. What more do QF want?

Like Ansett, let free enterprise play out.

[Ken Borough]

'on the side consulting companies'


Gladly supply proof:.................a well known manager closed the Apprentice training school (90 years of tradition!) and outsourced it to the local TAFE, claiming a $2 Million dollar saving.

Much later we find that he is on the board of that same TAFE.............

Que? Here's me all these years thinking that TAFE was part of the government education system! When did TAFE morph into the private sector.

[yellowmellow]

Hey Goblin

Think about what's the point I'm trying to make? Are you suggesting that an office person has it better?

Anyway you're counting sleep in calculations?

If you at it you have more time at home than an office person..

What happens if the crew actually enjoy the locations that they are in? The break and lifestyle of flying? Fly with their friends?

Mcdonald's pays and lets you go home at night. I enjoy being away for a week to have 3 at home...

[astroboy55]

its not about who has it better. Its about being paid for the job you do, or might need to do. Tell me what a 'manager' does that can affect someone elses life?

farkin nothin

[inandout]

In those pilot hrs one should times by say 30 to 50 per cent for study time. Then work out a pilots hry rate, not real good.

[The Green Goblin]

Hey Goblin

Think about what's the point I'm trying to make? Are you suggesting that an office person has it better?

Anyway you're counting sleep in calculations?

If you at it you have more time at home than an office person..

What happens if the crew actually enjoy the locations that they are in? The break and lifestyle of flying? Fly with their friends?

Any time you are not at home, i.e AWAY! You are working.

I'll spell it out for you just so you are aware.

A Pilot away for 100 days a year = 2400 hours that they are not with their family.

A 9-5 manager is home every night, and therefore is never away.

A 9-5 manager has weekends off, public holidays, christmas etc.

Pilots do not.

Pilots work shifts, nights, ever changing rosters. They have to bid for leave which is awarded on seniority, and generally miss most of the families important events - which mostly leads to divorce.

Traditionally - we were well remunerated for this.

If the 9-5 managers get their way, we will be paid less than a bus driver.

[billyt]

So go become a manager.

[Icarus2001]

Tell me what a 'manager' does that can affect someone elses life?

How about building a crappy roster for you?

How about under training staff you work with so that they are next to useless?

[astroboy55]

icarus....ill rephrase...

tell me what a 'manager' can do that has a positive influence on someones life and justifies the money they earn...tell me how much time and money they have dedicated to get to the position they are in.

farkin nothin!

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
Tell me what a 'manager' does that can affect someone elses life?
How about building a crappy roster for you?

How about under training staff you work with so that they are next to useless?

They not only do it, they pat each other on the back and get a bonus for it :p

When they say they work for [insert airline here] secretly they hope the person they are telling, thinks they are a Pilot :E

[The Green Goblin]

So go become a manager.

Pffft

I'd rather become a Kiwi :cool:

['holic]

So go become a manager.

No worries .... where can I get a frontal lobotomy? :E

[standard unit]

........don't forget the integrity bypass.

[Dangnammit]

my lips don't kiss THOSE cheeks....

[GlobalMaster]

There is some very sensible analysis that says if we agree to the (Union) conditions, then we put the international business into oblivion’
Is a quote from today’s Australian and it's half right!

In all probability, Qantas will not have the cash to complete its A380/B787 fleet re-equipment program. However, any suggestion that cost cutting and off shoring/outsourcing will change this, doesn't cut.

What to do. What to do. Workforce on one side - Management on the other. Both dammed if the do, and both dammed if they don’t.

Can’t change the workforce. Can change the underlying company strategy.

Problem is - how to.

[kalavo]

Pffft

I'd rather become a Kiwi :cool:

That's what they seem to be hoping for :)

[nike]

We already got rid of Auntie Helen, we don't need Auntie Goblin coming over.

[gobbledock]

While I do not hold a brief for anyone in Qantas management, I find this allegation offensive. gobbledock should put up or shut up: he should withdraw the allegation if he can't substantaite it.

Ken,you truly are an incredibly done footstool. As with most of your comments you again prove that you have minimal knowledge of the inside workings of The Rat even though you like to portray yourself as some sort of well connected 'big hitter'. Your back must surely be sore by now from the constant bending over you do for management ?
I believe your silly assertion and comment of 'putting up or shutting up' should not even have been posted had you accurately understood the workings of Mascot. Besides this IS a rumour network old timer, not an 'allegation network' as you like to refer to comments as being, allegations. Anybody astute enough to do some research OR actually know the right people at the right levels will have full knowledge and understanding of the consultancy arangements.

As for 'offensive' I have noticed in the past that other ppruners have found your faulty incorrect aviation comments offensive, I however don't take offence at things as easily as you do probably because I dont have a pea size heart, but then again my lips arent pressed firmly against senior managements ass cheeks the way your lips are.

Anyway, back on track........

[PPRuNeUser0198]

As for the "manager" - 40 hours is bullocks. Try an min of 50 hours + and on 2,000 e-mail's 24/7, 7 days a week with a tonne of stress...

The "managers" and other staff are working under tougher conditions, with fewer resources to support the greater workload, whilst living in fear of job losses all the time...

How many pilots have been made redundant?

And yes, "managers" and below, conditions have also "eroded" over the years - and that is the reality...

[The Green Goblin]

As for the "manager" - 40 hours is bullocks. Try an min of 50 hours + and on 2,000 e-mail's 24/7, 7 days a week with a tonne of stress...

The "managers" and other staff are working under tougher conditions, with fewer resources to support the greater workload, whilst living in fear of job losses all the time...

How many pilots have been made redundant?

And yes, "managers" and below, conditions have also "eroded" over the years - and that is the reality...

If you don't like it, leave.

It's not so easy as a Pilot locked in a seniority system to up and go. Especially when this will probably mean moving states or even countries and the subsequent impact on families.

Managers on the other hand can go manage any other company in any other industry, in just about any other place, but most importantly - in their home town.

Pilots are not made redundant because it costs a lot of money to train them, and resources to check them to line. A manager can be hired and working in a week. A Pilot from advertising, interviewing, hiring, training, checking to line can take 12 months or more.

See where I am coming from?

[PPRuNeUser0198]

I am just responding to the theme that Qantas Exec's live in a "wonderland"...that is far from accurate.

It is certainly a very different place to what it was even 10 years ago...

[The Green Goblin]

I am just responding to the theme that Qantas Exec's live in a "wonderland"...that is far from accurate.

It is certainly a very different place to what it was even 10 years ago..

Then leave. I hear JB is hiring!

It's not so easy for the Pilots. They are stuck in a dead end, and their career is being outsourced to the lowest bidder.

I would hate to be a middle aged Qantas FO right now. The SOs in their 20s can still do something about it. The others a stuck and management knows it. :{

[yellowmellow]

Movement at the airline and growth isn't happening because we have priced ourselves out of the market.

Qantas Link announce a new route every couple of weeks while we get one every couple of years...

[Z Force]

Setting up new routes has nothing to do with pilots incomes. The major problem that Qantas faces is government policy.

[S70IP]

Setting up new routes has nothing to do with pilots incomes. The major problem that Qantas faces is government policy.

please explain to the uneducated?

[Z Force]

Open skies by letting pretty well anyone and everyone to come in resulting in an abundance of seats available for operators to fill, operators that pay a lot less or no tax to their government, probably also being subsidised by their governments. As an example, SIA can depreciate their aircraft over three years, Australian operators ten years.

[stubby jumbo]

I have to agree with T-Vasis on this.

I have never posted anything positive about Qantas "management" in the past-BUT ......(as Gough once said)

ITS TIME!!

I have had an absolute gutful of the Qantas "strategy" of "acting decisively" post few price hikes by........... SACKING PEOPLE.

OK....so now what happens. The survivors are restructured and have to work harder for the same pay.

Its the constant pall of FEAR & GLOOM that hangs in the whole workplace .

Had a coffee in the Red Roo yesterday......no one smiling, laughing. Its all eyes down,despair, and the look of "here we go again!!"

Toxic indeed.:eek:

[skybed]

1) no country in the world let's a foreign company set up an airline without major local shareholders except Australia.
2) most Asian airlines are closely connected to their governments hence having major influences in development etc. of local turf issues.
3)Australiann government policy under Howard opened up the Sky's without realising some of the flow on effects of their policy.
4)Labour (Yes, Minister) has no idea how to get a handle on all the current issues.
5) the lack of depth in asking the right questions(not accepting and digging in at the general answers from the respondent) at the current Senate enquiry .
and so on and son on...............:*

[teresa green]

Stubby Jumbo, if you look at the records, QF like lemmings over a cliff, go thru this mad crazy sacking people, especially people who are experienced every couple of years. THEN they rehire people who know bugger all. This is a ongoing problem, that has been going on for the last 12 years or so. Why????? who knows. Qantas really flies in spite of itself, due to its amazing, weary, frustrated, long suffering staff. And then they sack them. They need to send a army of psychologists into this mob to find out what makes them tick and why they do what they do.:confused:

[stubby jumbo]

Spot on Teresa.

In years to come -some Organisational Psychology -PHD student will write a thesis on the culture of this joint and it will become a best seller in:
HOW NOT TO MANAGE A WORKFORCE OF SAFETY AND CUSTOMER SERVICE PROFESSIONALS or

7 HABITS OF HIGHLY IN-EFFECTIVE MANAGERS AT QANTAS

One only has to gaze east across the pond to see what a CEO with some nous and business /people skills can do with an airline.

Time is running out though.......the "good will" tank is running on empty:eek:

[framer]

One only has to gaze east across the pond to see what a CEO with some nous and business /people skills can do with an airline.


ha thats actually quite true! I know it would never happen but if the QF board offered RF a 'Robbie Deans contract' , say $50 million Ausi for three years to get him to shift, the airline would make that back in quick time I reckon. Why do you guys pay so much for such rubbish CEO's? QF would literally do better if you gave a 12 year old a flow chart to follow and put him at the helm. IMHO of course.

[the_company_spy]

Trent, I think you are on the money with tat one.

[Sunfish]

Teresa Green:

Stubby Jumbo, if you look at the records, QF like lemmings over a cliff, go thru this mad crazy sacking people, especially people who are experienced every couple of years. THEN they rehire people who know bugger all. This is a ongoing problem, that has been going on for the last 12 years or so. Why????? who knows. Qantas really flies in spite of itself, due to its amazing, weary, frustrated, long suffering staff. And then they sack them. They need to send a army of psychologists into this mob to find out what makes them tick and why they do what they do

I thought you understood.......

When an inexperienced manager asks an experienced person to do the impossible, and the experienced person refuses and explains why the course of action is stupid, the inexperienced manager feels both threatened and thwarted.

The obvious solution is to sack the experienced person and hire an inexperienced worker who does not know enough to object when asked to do the impossible.

Happens all the time.

I was once hired into a $140,000 Group General Managers job in an IT company specifically because I had NO I.T. experience!

The Board of the company didn't want to hire someone "contaminated" by exposure to traditional ways of doing things in that industry, they wanted to try something new that professionals had told them wouldn't ever work.

I spent Eighteen months proving that the professionals were right and the Board was wrong before I realised my mistake and left....

[ANCDU]

This must be part of Joyces plan. The leisure market it faltering and has huge over capacity. The buisness market is slowly returning and at the moment Qantas has a virtual monopoly. In other words qantas domestic is doing quite well at the moment (well actually it always does) and Jetstar is losing money. What do they do? Reduce qantas domestic growth and keep on expanding Jetstar! huh! :ugh:

The contempt that senior management has for Qantas employees is astounding, actually its only matched my the employees contempt for the senior management.

[Lucky Six]

Management is the real problem and that includes oversight of management by the QF Board. Alphaload is correct in focusing on the financial health of QF. He is what Roger Montgomery of Montgomery Investment Management said in an ABC interview on Wednesday:

"BRONWYN HERBERT: Roger Montgomery is the managing director of Montgomery Investment Management.

He questions Qantas' financial health.

ROGER MONTGOMERY: Well the company has increased the amount of equity that it's had employed.

So in other words it's gone to its shareholders and asked them for additional money and about $2.5 billion over the last 10 years.

They've also gone to the banks and they've asked for another three - almost $3 billion or $2.5 billion again in debt.

Now this is in addition to the money that they already had and the debt that they already had.

So they've massively increased - they've almost doubled the debt that they had. They've almost doubled the amount of money that's been contributed to the company by shareholders.

Despite that there's a very small increase in profit over the last 10 years and the recent announcement, or today's announcement, makes things even worse.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Does that raise the question that they would then seek out more funds from potential investors?

ROGER MONTGOMERY: If they keep going the way they've been going - with the amount of planes that they've got, the amount of staff that they've got, the routes that they've got and the prices that they've got - then yes they'll have to keep increasing the amount of money that's contributed to the business.

So it's very altruistic shareholders and lenders to keep this business afloat.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Qantas' boss Alan Joyce says it's still too early to estimate the total impact of all of these significant events on financial year results."

Safe Flying

[Keg]

In other words qantas domestic is doing quite well at the moment (well actually it always does) and Jetstar is losing money.

And yet we hear nothing about J* not returning it's cost of capital! :ugh: :rolleyes: :suspect:

[waren9]

Anyone got any references or hard data JQ is currently loss making?

AirNZ and Virgin are pretty open about it. Reg's recent memo to staff all but eliminating discretionary spending hints at it, pax loads aren't flash, and minor capacity reductions to Japan and Christchurch but thats about it.

[breakfastburrito]

warren9, here's the way QAN_Shareholder thinks about these things:
T-Vasis, I wouldn't put much weight on auditing for ensuring the accuracy of transactions between Qantas and Jetstar. I worked as an auditor for a spell and internal transactions are way down the priority list, there is very little risk to the auditor from internal transactions being mis-stated.

However, I agree the argument that JQ is being subsidised as part of some plot to undermine QF is rather unpersuasive. The more prosaic explanation is more likely that parts of QF are uncompetitive and management are justifiably unwilling to continue to pour more cash into parts of the business that can't make a return on capital.
QAN_Shareholder 15 Feb, 2011 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/442293-qfs-dilemma-reasons-why-2.html#post6246241).

I suspect there are only a handful of executives at Qantas who actually know the true P&L for subsidiaries.

[flitegirl]

I don't think this has been posted yet.

Qantas to cut ageing Boeing fleet (http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-to-cut-ageing-boeing-fleet-20110403-1ct77.html)

[SOPS]

20 million dollars for a 20 year old clapped out 737?? Somehow I dont think so.

[The Green Goblin]

20 million for all 21 of them I'd say :}

Then AJ will get a 30 million dollar bonus for his good work :{

[73to91]

20 million for all 21 of them I'd say

Then AJ will get a 30 million dollar bonus for his good work


20 less 30 returns a profit of umm - it seems as though that is how it works at QF now.

Maybe the 20 will be needed to pay some of the redundancies for the senior management ? Say 15 for redundancies less the 30 bonus for AJ is -25. Might have to reverse the decision to get rid of management and get rid of the low level (read lower paid) employees instead ;)

Has anyone heard if anyone has been given their marching orders yet?

[1a sound asleep]

Large Transport Jet for sale - Add your Aircraft listings here. (http://www.aviatorsale.com/Large_Transport_Jet/)

Quick search and I reckon QF's 734's are worth maybe $3-6m each. Where this $20m comes from I have no idea...

[VH-Cheer Up]

The article did say "up to $20M", maybe there's one example that has only been flown to church on Sundays by a little old lady.

I'd give the airframe a miss that decided the right main gear wasn't strictly needed for an arrival into YSSY one dark wet night a few years back...

[skybed]

swap them for some 777 on sale:sad::eek:

[bubble.head]

734 x 21 = 252J / 2772Y
738 x 14 = 168J / 2184Y

With the replacement of the old 400s, to the new 800s there will be less business class for the Q club boys and also a reduction in the potential frequency and capacity between ports. They will also have a huge gap between their little Q400s (74y) to the 738s (156y+12J). Would they fill in the gap to replace the thinner routes like the E190 is to Virgin?

The more important question is, what will happen to the 70odd 734 pilots that is in excess due to the reduction of the aircraft numbers?

[1a sound asleep]

The more important question is, what will happen to the 70odd 734 pilots that is in excess due to the reduction of the aircraft numbers?

Dont stress - its going take ages to sell the 734 fleet and will be done 1 or 2 at a time.

[ejectx3]

That's easy..... more surplus longhaul pilots get 'parked' in the short haul award, as training on the 737 continues, and 737 hours plummet even further as Onestar poaches more flying and all our Trans-tasman flying goes to Jitconnict.

Sigh....

[breakfastburrito]

I can just hear the soundbite now "Look, they only fly on average 14.5 hours per week...see how inefficient these mainline shorthaul pilots are!"

[HF3000]

This is nothing new... The 21 734s have long been planned for replacement by 738s by end of next year. These 738s have been in the order book for years, and the 734s have been long planned to be retired by 2013. Just ignorant journalism as usual, probably based on a press release by Qantas trying to help the share price along by "announcing" something that is actually nothing new and hoping nobody notices. Of course, it works and everyone jumps up and down patting AJ on the back for acting quickly and decisively in a dynamic aviation climate...

[VR-HFX]

Perth flight gone forever.

Why doesn't Joyce just send CX and SQ their Qantas Club membership list:ugh:

Philip Nitschke...Qantas needs your help.:sad:

[runesta]

for anyone who flies on these sh!tcans this is great news

[SpannerTwister]

*Shakes head*

While I'll agree the B734 are not the most fuel efficient airplane in the world today, one wonders how much these Australian Airline airplanes owe Qantas ?

I'd be thinking that for the "change-over" value of a B734 - B738 you could buy a truck-load of Jet-A1 ............

Bl@@dy accountants, knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing !!

ST

[Keg]

I haven't checked this for spin but comments on the QF flight crew blog by management suggest that:
1. QF don't own 21 B734s, they own 17, and,
2. As far as they're aware, the fleet is still to grow by 5 over the next year or two.

[The The]

The 734 sale includes the Jetconnect fleet. I think Jetconnect have 3 x 734. Must be another one floating around somewhere to make the total 21.

The 738 order for this year is 14, 11 for Aus and 3 for Jetconnect.

[SOPS]

Is it true that QF have cancelled the Perth to Toyko service permanetly? Another Emirates opening...?????

[ejectx3]

Yeah the 737 never quite made it all the way to Tokyo.:hmm:

[VBPCGUY]

Unless they find a buyer they wont get much more than scrap value for them, AAE need anymore freighters or Toll???

[What The]

To put the management cuts into perspective:

In 2009, when Alan Joyce took over the reins, 500 management jobs were cut.

“The Australian's John Durie (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/daloisio-shifts-blame-from-asic/story-e6frg9if-1226030990054) wrote: "Another 200 Qantas managers, or about 16 per cent, face the axe since the fuel price hike that has hit the airline industry. This would be biggest cut since April 2009, when about 500 positions were cut…”
Source: Business Spectator http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Qantas-Virgin-Blue-retail-Colorado-Myer-Centro-ASX-pd20110331-FFQU8?opendocument&src=rss (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Qantas-Virgin-Blue-retail-Colorado-Myer-Centro-ASX-pd20110331-FFQU8?opendocument&src=rss)

At the time, the reduction resulted in 800 Executives remaining within the Qantas Empire or 2.4% of the workforce based on the 2009 annual report figure of 33,030 employees.

If 16% of Executives is 200 then the total number of Executives now stands at 1250. This is 3.85% of the employees based on the 2010 annual report figure of 32,490 employees.

So, under Alan Joyce’s tenure, the Executive ranks at Qantas have swelled by 450 or approximately 57%. Add to that that there are generally 2 SPG’s (Senior Professional Group) managers to each Exec and the explosion at the top is quite extraordinary. This has happened in two years whilst Alan has been hammering the actual people who face the customer.

Alan, you have lost the plot. Your engagement mantra is just a hollow set of words not backed by any action.

By the way, every Qantas frontline employee should be aware that when an Executive takes 4 weeks of leave, they are re credited one week back into their leave bank as an incentive. How does every Pilot, Flight Attendant, Engineer etc. feel about that little smack in the face? Your family time is nowhere near as important as theirs.

[MyerFlyer]

Guys,

You all raise some very good points and it's all well and good pointing them out on these forums BUT.... Has anyone bothered sending these facts or concerns to the people that count? You can start with Joyce, as well as the chairman followed by the board members?

Otherwise nothing will ever change.

Just an idea??

[dizzylizzy]

The classing of PER/NRT/PER was suspended not cancelled.

[runesta]

You all raise some very good points and it's all well and good pointing them out on these forums BUT.... Has anyone bothered sending these facts or concerns to the people that count? You can start with Joyce, as well as the chairman followed by the board members?

Otherwise nothing will ever change.



nothing had change and will change

pool of goodwill and talent draining everywhere

morale rock bottom at frontline and middle management

cronyism rife in senior management, rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic

the days are numbered at the flying rat - mark my words it will be Ansett II

[Dunnocks]

From the SMH:
Qantas to cut up to 200 managers

Matt O'sullivan

April 7, 2011

THE bulk of almost 200 managers and support staff to be laid off by Qantas will be given notice from today as the airline cuts costs in an effort to combat surging jet fuel prices and weak travel demand.
The latest staff cuts are also seen as an attempt to allay concerns among investors about Qantas's ability to navigate the severest downturn since the global financial crisis. Jet fuel prices have reached fresh highs of more than $US137 ($132) a barrel in Singapore trading this week, up 38 per cent since the start of the year.
Qantas did not reveal the number of staff to be axed when it announced cost-cutting measures last week, which included retiring aircraft and cutting domestic and international flights.
Advertisement: Story continues below
But insiders said that up to 200 managers and support staff would be layed off. The cuts could extend beyond the lower management rungs to operational positions, they said.
It was also speculated yesterday that one of the casualties could be Lesley Grant, the executive manager of customer and marketing who reports directly to the chief executive, Alan Joyce. Ms Grant was appointed in January to head a special team which aimed to improve Qantas's international product and brand image. She temporarily stepped aside from her previous role, which was divided between senior executives Lyell Strambi and Rob Gurney.
The management cuts are also seen as giving the company leverage ahead of a looming showdown with three unions representing licensed aircraft engineers, long-haul pilots and ground handling and check-in staff.
Will Seddon, of White Funds Management, said the management and support staff cuts gave the company credibility in their negotiations with the unions, as well as lowering labour costs.
''It should have given people confidence that there is someone behind the joystick. They have been relatively quick to act and what they have done is fairly rational,'' Mr Seddon said.
''I think everyone in the industry would look at where there is spare fat in the middle management ranks.''
However, Qantas is understood to be mindful about the loss over the last six months of experienced senior managers who have formed the brains of its international operations for decades, including Roger Lindeman, Hope Antzoulastos and Peter McLaughlin.
The latest cuts come two years after Qantas axed up to 1250 staff and 500 management positions in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.

[cart_elevator]

dizzylizzy:

was told today by a senior manager that NRT-PER will never return, as it cant (and never did) make a profit. :{

[Qantas 787]

The figure of 200 jobs has been mentioned in the Herald today - also hinted that Lesley Grant may be one of those on the chopping block.

[Fruet Mich]

In the mean time Jetstar has just sent an email out to staff advertising 36 commands and the need for 261 pilots over the next 9 month due to massive expansion.

Bruce Buchanan has also been blabbing away to tech crew on a recent jump seat ride explaining that Qantas long haul was unsustainable and will be gone in a few years.

It could be just the managements little cunning plan to get it out there but I do seem to remember Ansett telling all their staff the same thing just before it went tits up and everyone saying "don't worry it's just scare tactics from management!"

30 odd thousand employees will be hoping it is a bluff from management, me included!

[breakfastburrito]

Bruce Buchanan has also been blabbing away to tech crew on a recent jump seat ride explaining that Qantas long haul was unsustainable and will be gone in a few years.
Interesting comment there Fuet mich, if correct.

It would appear that the entire IR strategy has been about building a parallel offshore airline based around the B787. Once deliveries of the B787 were proceeding at a good pace, mainline would be put to the sword, goodnight & farewell.
breakfastburrito 29 March 2011 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/445578-qantas-staff-strike-2.html#post6336622)

teresa & Ndicho, implicit in your comments is a single assumption so fundamental, so basic that is is easily overlooked - that the board & senior management wants a Qantas to survive in its present form. Test this assumption & review the last 10 years, what conclusions to do you come to?

Random thoughts that spring to mind: APA, takeover, low share price, Qantas Sale act.

I could be very wrong, but I believe it is important to test every assumption carefully, and think outside the box.
Breakfastburrito 5 April 2011 (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/447768-alan-joyce-7-30-tonight.html#post6350884)

It is not sustainable because senior management don't want it to be sustainable. This is an entirely management driven agenda. The play here is to get as many non "polluted" pilots in the door of j*, put mainline to death, then if forced by the IR laws (and a significant time delay, court cases, FWA etc) offer positions to the now out of work pilots - knowing full well that the vast majority are not going to want to start at the bottom of the seniority list as a junior FO. Further, these pilots can expect to be victimised through basings & denial of promotion.

There is a high degree of vindictiveness, spite & maliciousness in this deliberate process. As a j* pilot I would note this carefully, as it will be your future too.

There is nothing here I see to change my working hypothesis that Qantas is being destroyed to justify its destruction. Counter arguments please.

[Ken Borough]

Bruce Buchanan has also been blabbing away to tech crew on a recent jump seat ride

Have the rules changed, or is BB really a pilot in disguise who was getting some recency or do we dismiss this report as being false? :rolleyes:

[breakfastburrito]

Which rule(s) are you referring to?

[Capt Kremin]

The counter argument to the "Qantas is being destroyed deliberately" argument is that the Board woud be locked up if they deliberately pursued such a strategy. It is against the law to deliberately destroy shareholder value.

As far a Buchanan saying mainline is unsustainable, it was very sustainable before he and his Orange cancer arrived on the scene. With high oil prices I would be much more concerned about his own bailiwick first.

[ANCDU]

Capt Kremin, I thought that too about the Qantas brand being deliberately destroyed, I thought that we just had awful management! But unfortunately the longer this goes on the more I seem to realise that this seems to be their aim.Why? simple.....the current management at Qantas surely couldn't be as inept as it is, there must be a plan. The board must have knowledge of a long term plan that we have no knowledge of.

Qantas domestic is a huge money spinner for the airline especially at the moment, but you NEVER hear Mr Joyce spruiking how good it is or patting the domestic troops on the back.You only ever hear how good J* is at helping the airline. Apparently the leisure market is struggling, wouldn't you stop capacity growth and save costs there too? No, thats not the Qantas management way, we need to expand it and blame everything on the Long Haul business.

I had to laugh at the BB email that Qantas pilots are trying to damage the J* brand that they had worked so hard at building. Simple..there would never have been a J* brand without Qantas mainline, they would never have had an instant network with instant passengers if it wasn't for Qantas mainline. BB did nothing to build an airline, he built it by taking patronage of the parent..simple. Some say Qantas would not have survived without J*, i don't agree anymore.I feel sick saying this but i feel this is the beginning of the end of Qantas as we know it...its not just the VB planes that will be rebranded soon. I always wondered what A320's would look like in Qantas colours.

[Going Boeing]

Qantas isn't really tightening its seat belt April 7, 2011

There's been an amazing amount of bluff and bluster from Qantas CEO Alan Joyce over the past week. If you only read the headlines, you'd almost think Qantas was tightening its seat belt. It's not.

Putting 21 tired old 737s and a couple of near-ancient 767s up for sale makes for a good headline, but the real surprise is buried in the fine print: despite the well-publicised impact of natural and nuclear disasters, the oil price, fragile domestic tourism, currency damage to inbound travel and the annoying John Travolta flight safety video, Qantas is expanding its domestic and international capacity in the second half of this year by 8 and 7 per cent respectively.

That is not belt tightening. Alan Joyce might be fiddling with the buckle, but the belt is sitting loosely over a pair of comfort-fit pants with the hidden waist expander as the airline goes for a second helping of roast turkey. And if Boeing can ever get its 787 to stay airborne for longer than the Spruce Goose, Qantas is looking at dessert with a shovel.

In an industry more rational than aviation, you'd expect the current litany of woes to mean no capacity expansion, if not a contraction.

What's more, the 737 and 767s of pensionable age won't really be missed. They're only in the air thanks to being written down to nearly zero, meaning the return-on-capital-employed figure made up for the more expensive maintenance, higher fuel costs and the brand damage caused by reduced reliability, tired cabins and worse seats.

(Not untypical was the cushion on my Thursday evening Sydney-Brisbane run being pretty much gone, leaving an uncomfortable metal bar under the thighs – and that was business class. I would not have wanted to be paying for it. Ditto “business class” in the old 737s that are basically economy seats with the middle chair blocked off. These planes have become incompatible with the Qantas makeover.)

So what's really happening with the Flying Roo when the walk isn't matching the talk? Those given to conspiracy theories might have an eye on the growing industrial relations tensions, but I suspect a bigger bet is being made on prosperity being just around the corner. That's always quite a bet in the risky aviation business.

There are some interesting factors caught up in that gamble. The current oil price jump is not like the last demand-driven tightening. Those with a better understanding of these things reckon there's about a $15 “risk premium” in today's price – it's the speculation about potential supply disruption, rather than a fundamental change.

The thing about a risk premium price spike is that it happens quicker and isn't accompanied by the natural hedge Australia tends to get from a stronger dollar. Yes, the Aussie is around post-float highs, but as a major energy and commodities exporter, our currency's recent rise has not kept pace with the oil price. If it had, our dollar would be buying something more like $US1.10.

The flip side is that the risk premium can disappear as quickly as it arose. A sudden resolution of the Libyan war could send the oil speculators running for the doors, wiping most of that premium out. Want to bet an airline's profitability on Libyan battlefields? I guess that's why it's called a risk premium.

In the meantime, the speed of the oil price hike is hitting inelastic demand – meaning higher petrol prices are immediately felt in consumers' hip pockets. Leisure travel is one of the more discretionary items in the household budget and quickly cut when the consumer perceives their domestic budget has to be tightened.

Well, their domestic tourism budget is being tightened anyway. The latest Roy Morgan Research holiday-tracking survey recorded the lowest January quarter score (57 per cent) since 2006 for Australians intending to holiday in Australia for their next trip in the next 12 months, but the highest score (10 per cent) in five years for Australians intending to travel overseas for their next trip in the next 12 months.

If the oil price was demand rather than risk premium driven, it would be symptomatic of a healthier, stronger economy. Before the GFC smashed the party, oil prices were a great deal higher, but everyone was having such a good time dancing, they barely noticed. Right now, people are noticing.

In this climate then, it's very strange for the two Australian airline groups to be increasing capacity. Maybe running an airline is like being an average farmer: if you weren't given to some form of optimism, you couldn't undertake the daily triumph of hope over experience. Yet there are reasons for some optimism - or excuses, depending on your disposition.

Qantas' international problems and profitability or lack thereof are very well publicised by the management. What you don't hear so much about is how very nicely profitable QantasLink is – the domestic regional business is doing very well indeed, so let's not draw attention to it. Include Qantas's ambition to grab more of the resources charter business and regional Australia is serving the Roo well. As the resources boom picks up pace, it should serve it even better.

The big promise of the capex boom being spread around, as preached by the Reserve Bank and Treasury, plus the billions being pushed into our economy by the terms of trade still means continued growth in employment and wages. Eventually, more jobs for more people with more money means more spending. The consumer might be suffering some sticker shock about electricity and petrol today, but that tends to wear off in time and the discretionary spending returns. Remember that the RBA doesn't see a consumer strike, but a healthy abating of “the run-up in household leverage”. Healthier households become stronger ones – the unknown is how long it will be before they feel healthy enough to handle more indulgence.

And business is waiting for its share of the capex and resources billions. The smarter operators are already working on getting theirs, both in services growth and services to the services growth. And winning and servicing business still requires plenty of travel.

It's much harder to find a sunny side of the international inbound street given the acknowledged current problems. Volume hope is still a few years away when China is richer again and we experience the next new wave of tourism, if we're smart enough to win it and if our carriers are competitive. In the meantime, there are plenty of us going shopping overseas and needing to come home again. Qantas's challenge is to be the carrier of choice on the routes we want.

Right now though, there are bums on seats, but the bums aren't yielding much profit. It's a brave CEO then who keeps adding capacity, providing more seats – or all is not quite so gloomy in the Qantas crystal ball.

It'd be nice to think that the real test of how serious Qantas is about its belt tightening will be revealed in the annual report when we see what's happened to the pay packets of the CEO and CFO – but somehow such things seem immune to turbulence.

PS. And they've flicked Glenn A Baker's Reelin' in the Years nostalgia audio channel to the international entertainment menu. If they touch the ABC's Angela Catterns, there really will be trouble.

Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor (courtesy of SMH)

[stubby jumbo]

Rumour= LG got punted today??

True /Not true?

[another superlame]

If that is true about LG then surely the share price must shoot skyward. Well from cabin crews point of view anyway.

[Oldmate]

So if they float jetstar (ensuring jobs for all the execs), put mainline into administration, then rebrand jetstar as Qantas, does the Qantas sale act still apply?

[The Kelpie]

I wouldn't have thought so Oldmate. Different ABN, different legal entity in which QF is only a shareholder!!

But that is the Agenda isn't it!!

But when it does happen I hope Joyce doesn't expect the government not to do a forensic post-mortem!! They are gonna be well pissed!!

Cheers

Kelpie

[AN1944]

Go away aj save qf $$$$$$$ better still it might save qf:d

[ampclamp]

Thanks for that GB.
one of Pascoe's more intuitive pieces.
I'll have to remember those capacity numbers next time they come around trying to sell how poor they are.Sure things are not perfect ie Japan NZ eA380 blow up 787 delays.
But they are largely transient.
QF have been kicking ar$e in WA in fly in fly out business to the mines.Domestic seems to be going well despite gifting so much to JQ.

[breakfastburrito]

oldmate & Kelpie, here's a bone to chew on...
Does the Qantas Sale Act apply to Jetstar and other Qantas companies? ..... the full complement of Australian and international air service agreements. ...

(Senate )Report - Qantas Sale (Keep Jetstar Australian) Amendment Bill 2007 (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aph.gov.au%2Fsenate%2Fcommittee%2Fecono mics_ctte%2Fcompleted_inquiries%2F2004-07%2Fqantas%2Freport%2Freport.pdf&ei=CKOdTfO1GoOWcbv7jZwE&usg=AFQjCNHtwJxQriOz4WJJNqSqctsAAnJsog&sig2=2NjcJagYkr4K6ADI6K9zug)[PDF]
(I haven't had time to look at it yet myself, could provide some questions & answers)

Some International Air Service Agreements apply to both Qantas AND Jetstar IIRC, another avenue to investigate.

[Sunstar320]

Looks like QF are pretty serious about downsizing these days ;)

PhotoMaps by NearMap (http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-33.929806,151.174679&z=20&t=k&nmd=20101230)

[The Kelpie]

BB

Looks like Senator Kerry O'Brien had the wool pulled over his and the committees eyes by the Qantas execs on that occasion.

I hope he has the attitude of 'once bitten twice shy' this time. Surely he will appreciate given the responses given in this latest hearing that the chickens have already come home to roost and without government intervention QANTAS will join the Ansetts of this world!!

The Kelpie

[denabol]

I think Qantas can escape from the charge of destroying shareholder value if it continues to transfer value within the company, to Jetstar.

I also think this is wrong, dead wrong, as a way of doing business, but I don't have any QAN stock anymore, and my family is only exposed to VBA, in terms of some shares and one job, which remains a worry.

Is there a chance they will try Fiji as another offshore Jetstar entity as suggested in Plane Talking?

Fiji and the off shoring of Qantas/Jetstar – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/04/09/fiji-and-the-off-shoring-of-qantasjetstar/)

[73to91]

King digs deep at Palm Beach (http://www.smh.com.au/business/king-digs-deep-at-palm-beach-20110413-1de2f.html)

DISEMBARKED
Qantas's chief risk officer, Rob Kella, has quietly departed the Flying Roo's Mascot headquarters.
Kella headed for the departure lounge in February to ''pursue other interests'', but was not part of the undisclosed number of managers and support staff Qantas has recently decided to lay off.
Kella, who earned $1.58 million at Qantas last financial year, was among the airline's top-12 executive team. Several years ago he took on the added responsibility for safety during a management reshuffle.
Yesterday Qantas declined to say whether Kella would be replaced.

[Clipped]

among the airline's top-12 executive team

Fresh - a revolving door to the circus that is the Executive Team.

[stubby jumbo]

What astounds me in this whole scenario is that RK has moved on .....fair enough.....probably a good move:D

BUT what about the $1.58m they paid him last year and the year before and the year before that.

If Qantas are "choosing" NOT to replace him then they have been pssing $1.58m up against the wall every year he has been here !!!!
What is he supposed to have delivered?
Are we now less Risky now?

The bunch of buffoons running this outfit make City Rail executives look like geniuses.

This combined with the Wirth-less upgrade this week..... pffft:ugh:

[Pegasus747]

Approaching the terminal; Geoffrey Thomas Aviation Editor ; The flying kangaroo's global forays could be numbered
(The West Australian (Perth)) 16/04/2011


April 16, 2011 Saturday
First Edition

When Ansett collapsed under a mountain of debt in September 2001 an air hostess sobbed uncontrollably on Melbourne radio only able to utter the words, I never thought it would happen to us I never thought it would happen to us.

But it did and Qantas, many people now argue, is slowly but surely going the same way.

At the time of Ansett's demise then Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon warned our future is not guaranteed and drew almost universal mockery.

Now, with the unions circling Qantas demanding job security among a log of claims, some fear that Qantas in its present structure is not equipped to face further global liberalisation just as Ansett, burdened with excess baggage from the Sir Peter Abeles era and inflexible unions, was not positioned to withstand the ill winds of domestic deregulation.

Peter Harbison, executive chairman of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, has warned that Qantas' international operations faced oblivion if unions pressed ahead with their claim for guaranteed job security.

If they (Qantas international) cave in to the demands they will be wiped out and if they have a prolonged strike it will be gutted, Mr Harbison said.

Responding, Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce conceded that some of the demands on security would put us (Qantas international) out of business.

Qantas has strengths, such as the world's best domestic airline, but it also has weaknesses with fleet and union problems combined with being late to market with in-flight innovations.

It also faces the onslaught of low-cost carriers, domestically and internationally, and foreign premium airlines have more access to the market.

On international services Qantas is losing market share, down from 35 per cent in 2003 to 17.5 per cent in January, although some of that loss was because of unprofitable routes being transferred to its low-cost subsidiary Jetstar.

Low-cost airlines now bring more traffic to and from Australia.

During the global financial crisis, only strong profits from Qantas' frequent flyer program and Jetstar kept the airline group in the black.

Competition from overseas carriers is just one problem. Virgin Blue is about to relaunch as a premium airline on domestic routes next month, where Qantas has enjoyed a virtual monopoly on business travel.

And there is nothing to stop Singapore Airlines setting up a domestic operation in Australia.

The unions need to understand that some of their angst with the state of Qantas would be better directed at government, which has set in train the market dynamics that have left the airline under siege.

Qantas' problems are the same that have devastated many airlines around the world a largely regulated workforce, competition from government-subsidised airlines, carriers with lower labour costs, monopoly service providers such as airports and a fully or partially deregulated marketplace.

When appointed in 2008, Mr Joyce's mission was to get the group's businesses better matched to the market but he said at the time that there were very real challenges in all areas, particularly with the staff.

Qantas' industrial relations over the past few years have been more confrontational with devastating effects when engineers took everyday safety issues into the public arena.

When Mr Joyce took over he cut back middle management, eliminating 90 key positions and laying off another 500 middle managers.

Many say that the bureaucracy that he slashed had hindered Qantas by pouring cold water on market innovations such as seatback videos for economy passengers in 1995, premium economy in 1996 or planes such as the 777, the world's most economical and reliable twin-aisle aircraft.

Certainly, the airline has been let down badly by Boeing and Airbus on deliveries of the 787 and A380, which if on time would have enabled the earlier retirement of many older 767s and 747s.

Mr Dixon said in 2008 that nothing can really compensate for the delays. Our business would be totally different if they had been on time.

The problem for Mr Joyce is that as with Ansett, equipment and innovation decisions or lack thereof made in the past two decades are baggage weighing down the airline and not easy to change.

Domestically, there is no doubt that Qantas offers one of the world's best airline services, with its lowest fares often cheaper than low-cost airlines, once those airlines' seemingly endless and irritating add-ons are factored in.

Both the pilots and engineers have lobbied strongly for job security and no one denies the desirability of that goal, but in 1997 Sir Rod Eddington, then chief executive of Ansett, warned that there is no such thing in this industry any more.

There is now virtually no job security in any industry and the airline industry is the most volatile, the one most exposed to global labour markets and wage levels and the tide of liberalisation, which is more like a tsunami.

The conundrum for engineers is that the more they undermine the public's perception of Qantas' safety and maintenance standards, the more market share it loses and thus their job security becomes more and more tenuous.

For the pilots, some of whom earn close to $500,000, a different equation applies and they are in serious danger of pricing themselves out of a job.

The airline industry as it is today simply cannot sustain those salary levels.

Long gone are the days when Qantas could charge a premium for its safety record and now passengers constantly change airlines for $10 or less.

Some elements in the unions need to be more realistic and better appreciate the rapidly changing market dynamics and distortions. Qantas management's focus needs to be about getting on the front foot with innovation.

Following is no longer an option and Qantas must lead and build on what is one of the best reputations for safety.

To paraphrase Build it and he will come, Qantas management ought to Lead, and the staff will follow, as will the passengers and then the shareholders.

Put simply, Qantas needs to find reasons to make things happen, not why they cannot.

[rodchucker]

For pharks sake I am sick and tired about hearing how much pilots are paid. Who cares if it is $500k which I sincerely doubt.

The guy in the LHS has about $200m worth of assets in his hands as well as 400 lives, so is anyone (beyond BB) really arguing we should pay them $67K after years and years of training and 3 mthly checks as to whether they are still up to the task.

Pity they dont do the same for Rat Execs.

In all this doom and gloom from AJ, I dont hear anything about changes to the Bonus system for execs at the Rat and all I hear is bleating, whingeing and how bad things are. Well fix that and stop pissing about with a icon.

Time for them to do their jobs and take a reality check that if they cannot do it, someone else is capable so they should leave.

[Oakape]

For the pilots, some of whom earn close to $500,000

That's an interesting figure. I wonder where they got that from? Management perhaps?


Both the pilots and engineers have lobbied strongly for job security and no one denies the desirability of that goal, but in 1997 Sir Rod Eddington, then chief executive of Ansett, warned that there is no such thing in this industry any more.

There is now virtually no job security in any industry and the airline industry is the most volatile, the one most exposed to global labour markets and wage levels and the tide of liberalisation, which is more like a tsunami. (my emphasis).

If this is realy true & it is looking more & more like it is, we as a group are going to have to address the whole issue of seniority. Because seniority & the resultant loss of 'portability of skills', make lack of job security a career killer.

The ability to move without continually going back to square one is only going to became more & more essential if one is to have a career in aviation, rather than just a job. This is because movement between employers is becoming something that is forced upon more & more pilots, rather than being a matter of choice.

It is also fast becoming imperative to have something to fall back on before entering the aviation industry, because it is now highly likely that a pilot will need a skill outside of aviation at least once in his or her working life.

[RATpin]

Not a chance GT,last time it was a possibility,the then head of the Prime Ministers Department was reported to have said"who gives a f... about Ansett".
I suspect these reporters are doing their masters bidding,knowing in reality,that there is no way the Government would/could allow that scenario to eventuate.

[Oakape]

And another thing, why all this angst from certain quarters about how much pilots get paid?

I don't see them jumping up & down about how much movie stars get paid, for example. Cut their salaries in half & we all could go to the movies for 5 bucks!

No common sense, thought or big picture stuff these days. Just a bunch of whining good for nothings, who want everything handed to them on a plate & who resent anybody who they perceive has more than them.

[ampclamp]

500,000 is about a 20th of the loot handed to a former ceo.

If pilots had his track record there wouldn't be an intact hull left.

Open challenge to the ceo.
if you are so concerned with Qantas' future, you will elect to earn what an AVERAGE pilot or engineer earns until the company recovers and pays dividends again.

[h.o.t.a.s.]

Is anyone able to quote Jetconnects' supposed job security clause that apparently exists within their contract?

If it exists, and its good enough for them, well...

[Anthill]

If this is realy true & it is looking more & more like it is, we as a group are going to have to address the whole issue of seniority. Because seniority & the resultant loss of 'portability of skills', make lack of job security a career killer.

The ability to move without continually going back to square one is only going to became more & more essential if one is to have a career in aviation, rather than just a job. This is because movement between employers is becoming something that is forced upon more & more pilots, rather than being a matter of choice.

It is also fast becoming imperative to have something to fall back on before entering the aviation industry, because it is now highly likely that a pilot will need a skill outside of aviation at least once in his or her working life.


I've said this previously in other threads. I was howled down and called a 'management stooge' etc. Seniority is also a mechanism that serves to drive our salaries lower. I suppect a different perspective will eventually emerge when/if QF falls over.

[ernestkgann]

Out of interest Anthill, without seniority, how would you objectively differentiate between similarly qualified pilots within an airline?

I can understand how it might impede the process of acquiring new pilots to an airline that doesn't have qualified employees. That flexibility already seems to exist in VB and J* as they have used DE pilots where necessary.

[newsensation]

WhiteAnt management stooge .... I am better therefore i should be promoted over you nananana :ok:

[gruntyfen]

From the Guardian UK

BA and union chiefs to hold talks this week British Airways chief Keith Williams to meet Unite general secretary Len McCluskey on Tuesday to look for a solution to the long-running cabin crew dispute





Share (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F20 11%2Fapr%2F17%2Fbritish-airways-union-talks&t=BA%20and%20union%20chiefs%20to%20hold%20talks%20this%20wee k%20%7C%20Business%20%7C%20The%20Guardian&src=sp)
http://static.guim.co.uk/static/103869/common/styles/images/icon_reddit.gif (http://reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2011 %2Fapr%2F17%2Fbritish-airways-union-talks)
http://static.guim.co.uk/static/103869/common/styles/images/icon_buzz.gif (http://uk.buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=the_guardian665&targetUrl=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/17/british-airways-union-talks&summary=British+Airways+chief+Keith+Williams+is+to+meet+Unit e+general+secretary+Len+McCluskey+on+Tuesday+to+look+for+a+s olution+to+the+long-running+cabin+crew+dispute&headline=%20BA%20and%20union%20chiefs%20to%20hold%20talks%20 this%20week%20%7C%20Business%20%7C%20The%20Guardian)




Dan Milmo (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/danmilmo)
guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Sunday 17 April 2011 15.21 BST <li class="history">Article history (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/17/british-airways-union-talks#history-link-box) http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/cartoons/2011/4/17/1303049919008/Posters-and-protester-fro-007.jpg Posters and protester from Unite's campaign last year. Cabin crew recently voted in favour of strike action for the fourth time in the dispute Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

Senior figures at British Airways (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/britishairways) and the Unite (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/unite) trade union will meet this week in the latest attempt to solve the long-running cabin crew industrial dispute.
BA chief executive Keith Williams and the general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, will hold face-to-face talks at an undisclosed location on Tuesday. In a move described by a trade union source as "very positive", the meeting will also be attended by representatives from Bassa, Unite's main cabin crew branch.
In an email to members , Bassa said: "The outcome of course cannot be predicted, we cannot guarantee that we will be successful but we can guarantee that we will do our absolute best to be so."
The move follows a joint statement by BA and Unite last week in which BA confirmed it has extended the union's strike mandate to allow peace talks to go ahead. Last month cabin crew voted for strike action for the fourth time in less than 18 months and their mandate was due to expire before the end of April, putting pressure on Unite to announce industrial action.
However, the BA and Unite statement, signed by Williams and McCluskey, made clear that both sides were focused on talks.
"To achieve such a peace, it is understood by British Airways that cabin crew must feel that their concerns are being fairly dealt with, and it is recognised by the union that the management and acceptance of change is the key to lasting peace," said BA and Unite. With the extension, Unite's mandate now expires in mid-May, removing the threat of walkouts over Easter and during the royal wedding.
A clinical psychologist, Mark Hamlin, whose company specialises in dealing with "fragility of trust", has met senior figures at BA and Unite as part of the preparation process for talks. Further impetus has been given to the process by a change in protagonists. Willie Walsh, BA's former chief executive, is now boss of BA's parent International Airlines Group, while Tony Woodley has stepped down as Unite general secretary.
The undisclosed location for talks is also likely to prevent a repeat of the bizarre scenes last year that saw protestors from the Socialist Workers Party invade discussions between Walsh and Woodley at the conciliation service Acas.
Although the dispute started in 2009 when BA unilaterally cut staffing levels on long-haul flights, the main issues of contention now include sanctions imposed on thousands of cabin crew who took part in 22 days of strikes last year. The issues that will be discussed in the talks are: removal of staff travel from strikers; binding arbitration for disciplinary cases involving cabin crew; and concerns over the introduction of a "mixed fleet" staffed by cabin crew on different terms and conditions.

[Metro man]

If you want job security these days then join the public service. Next to that, work for a profitable and expanding company.

Striking for job security is a bit like fighting for peace.

Does anyone consider that QANTAS is trying to do what Ansett failed to do (restructure) and went under as a result ?

If I run a business and can't compete with my competition because I over pay my staff in return for low productivity and don't give my customers what they want at a reasonable price what is likely to happen ?

Compare jobs at QF with equivalent jobs elsewhere, yes many people are paid a fair rate for their services and would command similar renumeration in another company. However many others are way over paid and if forced to sell their skills on the open market, would make only a small fraction of what they get at present. Baggage handlers perhaps ?

There is a market above the "two for ten bucks" low cost crowd. A lean, efficient QANTAS delivering a quality product could thrive, but not on all routes. Geography puts QF at a disadvantage, they are at the end of the line with a small population and high costs. First and business class cabins need to be filled and those seats in economy have to be sold at normal rather than discount fares. That will only happen on main routes such as SYD - LHR, HKG, LAX etc. Baz and his mates going from Perth to Bali for a week aren't going to support the present cost structure.

By the time everyone from the baggage handlers to cabin crew have got what they think they're entitled to, airfares need to be way above what the competition can charge. With well used aircraft, poor service and a string of well publicised incidents why pay a premium ?

Nice new B777s, quality cabin interiors, good service, lower cost base and no more interviews with traumatised passengers on the six o'clock news. It could be a successful "boutique" airline, but it won't be an SQ or EK.

[DEFCON4]

You assume that Qantas Employees are "overpaid"
You further assume that productivity is low
Where have you been for the last 10 years?
The labour costs at Qantas have been reduced by over 20% in the last ten years.
There are fewer staff working harder for their wages.ie they are being more productive....less check in staff,less cabin crew,less engineers,less support staff.The list goes on.
On the other hand executive wages have increased enormously.
In Australia there exists a skills shortage.You want ot talk about people being overpaid?Go the Kimberleys...electricians earning $150K a year.Compare the skillset with an FO on a jumbo.Also consider the debt involved in obtaining a CPL.
Employees are a soft target and the Unions the boogie man.Australia is not a cheap place to live.You need to earn a reasonable wage to support your family.You cannot earn a Thai wage and survive in Australia.
Every time there has been an event that affected Qantas over the last ten years employees have stepped up to plate and accepted wage freezes and reduced conditions to help the business survive.Executives have not.
You want to restructure Qantas?
Start with the trough feeding Executives who have made mistake after mistake that have cost the company a fortune.Executives who have starved the hard product of capital.Their answer to everything is to introduce a range of charges and levies and cut costs
When John Ward and his colleagues ran the airline it shone,it was innovative.
When was the last time Qantas was innovative with anything?
All airlines are subject to the same fixed costs.Why is it that Qantas is falling behind the others?
It is not because of labour costs.
Its down to incompetent management with a skillset more akin to running a lucky dip.
The cost cuttting has been going on for so long there is no fat left.
If you are going to be the best airline in the world you need to invest in the product.
If you can't compete change your aspiration
Air New Zealand is more at the end of the line than Qantas and New Zealand has a smaller population.
Compared to Qantas Air New Zealand is a vibrant innovative business run by a CEO who treats his employees as an asset not a bloody liability
Stop bitching Mr.Joyce and get on with your job.
A job you appear to be having difficulty with

[Metro man]

There are fewer staff working harder for their wages.ie they are being more productive

How productive are they compared to staff in other airlines and similar industries ?


You want ot talk about people being overpaid?Go the Kimberleys

And recieve a premium for working in a less desirable location. Far less difficult to find people in Sydney.

You cannot earn a Thai wage and survive in Australia.

Problem is the competition are able to employ staff on these sort of wages. When did Emirates staff last threaten strike action ?

Start with the trough feeding Executives who have made mistake after mistake that have cost the company a fortune.

Lack of investment in the long term future meant short term gains, now the chickens are coming home to roost. Someone has to sort out the mess while those responsible enjoy the fruits of their bonuses.

All airlines are subject to the same fixed costs.

Not necessarily:
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce called for an overhaul of Australia's 10-year depreciation policy, which puts the airline at a significant disadvantage compared to carriers like Singapore Airlines, which has a three-year schedule.
Qantas calls for aircraft depreciation overhaul :: Routesonline (http://www.routesonline.com/news/24/atw/20304/qantas-calls-for-aircraft-depreciation-overhaul/)


Compared to Qantas Air New Zealand is a vibrant innovative business

Which realises it won't be a major world player and concentrates on markets where it can make money. A model for QF to follow ?

[DEFCON4]

Metro Man you are selective of the points you take issue with and appear to ignore others which may be too difficult to tackle.
So who exactly who are you taking issue with ?
The disengaged employees who are trying to support there families or the incompetent greedy managment who hammer the workforce while increasing their own remuneration.
If Joyce spent as much time engaging the workforce as he does pissing them off Qantas would be a different more successful company.
Just remember that the employees didnt make the choices that brought the company to the place it now finds itself.Short term thinking and a bonus driven management culture surely did

[Sunfish]

Joyce fires another shot - more fear uncertainty and doubt. This time for the travelling public. "For Goodness sake Julia Gilliard! Crush those bloody unions! Why if they continue their campaign, I may not be able to see Auntie Mabel in Townsville next week!"


I note the comments of Mr. Peter Harbison. I fail to understand how he can be "Independent" when he comments on the only Australian airline of any size.

Isn't it strange what happens to people when they are encouraged to tread on other people in order to obtain a very large bonus?



By Conor Duffy for 7.30

Updated 5 hours 12 minutes ago

Conditions for baggage handlers and ground staff are causing major dramas for Qantas. (Reuters: Tim Wimborne, file photo)

Civil war is looming at Qantas, threatening the biggest industrial brawl since the Waterfront dispute and the possibility of more travel disruptions for disgruntled holiday-makers.

Thousands of travellers had their plans thrown into disarray after security incidents at Melbourne and Sydney airports and it appears the situation is set to get worse due to staff training and strike threats by several unions.

ABC 1's 7.30 can reveal the latest rift at the flying kangaroo is over plans to change the conditions of baggage handlers and ground staff at Melbourne Airport.

Qantas aircraft maintenance engineers have already voted to take industrial action after an engineer's strike three years ago caused travel chaos and cost the company more than $100 million.

Transport Workers Union (TWU) spokesman Tony Sheldon says Qantas performance in the last 10 years has decreased.

"You only have to ask passengers," he said.

"The last five years it's got tougher; in the last three years they've been driving the brand into the dirt."

But Qantas CEO Alan Joyce says the unions are being unreasonable.

"We haven't even opened up dialogue with the TWU and it is already threatening strike action and already asking for international guerrilla warfare on Qantas," he said.

"We had a dispute in 2008 that they'd impact on the reliability. We're saying in the current environment, with fuel price the way it is, with the uncertainty about demand as a consequence of that and the economic conditions, it is throwing oil on the fire."

Qantas pilots have also threatened to strike and union sources say that while negotiations are ongoing, they anticipate filing for industrial action.

At the heart of the dispute is outsourcing and overseas staff on Qantas-badged planes being paid less than Australian workers.

Australian and International Pilots Association spokesman Richard Woodward says the airline is actually shrinking.

"A young pilot joining today may not have a career in 10 or 15 years' time because the company's decided to send those aeroplanes overseas," he said.

Now another group of employees crucial to keeping planes in the air is inching closer to strike action - baggage handlers and ground staff.

Late last month Qantas filed an application to FairWork Australia to change the employer of 49 Melbourne-based baggage handlers and ground staff from a labour hire company to a new company called Qantas Ground Services (QGS).

The TWU's Mr Sheldon says under the new arrangement his members would be moved to a new award, which means lower pay.

"If you're a part-time employee, it's between $100 and $150 a week. That's somebody who's getting less hours than 38 hours," he said.

"And then if you're a full-time employee, you're looking at anywhere between $50 and $150, depending on your shift spread."

But a Qantas spokesman says it is the opposite of outsourcing and would mean increased security and entitlements.

"Around 170 workers in Perth, Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide have already moved over to QGS and Melbourne is the only place where the TWU is reneging on the agreement," he said.

"The TWU is standing in the way of these 40 to 50 people who want to work for QGS, a wholly-owned Qantas company, and have accepted the offer of employment which provides increased job security."

The union says the employees only accepted because of a clause in Qantas's application, which warns they may lose their jobs if they do not.

"If the orders are not granted, QGS will consider its available options, including recruiting a new workforce from the open market," said Peter Smith, QGS manager of industrial relations.

"This would mean that employees at Workforce International and Blue Collar would not be able to take up their preferred option of QGS employment at this time."

Mr Sheldon says staff are prepared to fight for their rights.

"In the case of Melbourne, this is the first time that a group of workforce people who have carried out work on behalf of Qantas have said: 'Look, we're facing bad or worse options, but we're going to fight because we just cannot face our families'," he said.

Handlers at Sydney Airport like Tom Kabourakis say they are increasingly insecure about their future.

Me personally, job security affects the whole family. Our lifestyle will have to change for everyone, my wife would probably have to go back to work to support the kids," he said.

Union showdown

The TWU represents 9,000 Qantas workers and Mr Sheldon says it has not even started its wider enterprise bargaining agreement negotiations.

But he warns the union is preparing for a major showdown.

"We have a CEO who congratulates them for their performance on one hand, then slaps them down and puts a gun to their head as they're on the ground saying: 'You have less job security, you either accept it and take lower wages, or I'll shoot'," he said.

But Mr Joyce has described the union tactics as Kamikaze moves that would hurt the job security of workers.

"To drive international customers into the waiting arms of the competition, who are largely not Australian-owned, not unionised and have few Australian workers, this is a recipe for permanent damage to our brand," he said.

He has confirmed Qantas is also getting ready for a fight and has been training managers to fill in if there is a strike.

Independent aviation analyst Peter Harbison says the dispute could already be costing Qantas money.

"Whenever there's talk about strikes there is an impact, looking at forward bookings, because people tend to be a little bit nervous about booking if they think there's gonna be a strike," he said.

He says competitive pressure on Qantas means management cannot afford to agree to the union demands or to face a protracted strike.

"It's quite possible that even if a strike did occur and it was a healthy battle and one side won, as it were, then the problem wouldn't go away," he said.

Mr Joyce says the airline is "hopeful that sense will prevail and that people will agree to a sensible outcome for all the parties".

But the baggage workers at Sydney Airport and potentially thousands of their colleagues are determined to resist a transformation of the company.

"We are prepared to fight tooth and nails all the way, whatever it takes, to keep our jobs," said Mr Kabourakis.

"It's a great company to work for, great people, great camaraderie amongst everyone, but we need to fight it for everyone."


'Guerrilla warfare' threatens to bring down Qantas - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/20/3197259.htm?section=justin)

[dragon man]

I can only assume that Joyce thinks that if he destroys the pilots , baggage handlers and engineers unions that he will get rewarded by Clifford with a new 3 year contract and a large bonus. From where i sit i think it doesnt matter as he wont have an airline left to run as Rome burns and he continues down the path of Dixon (do nothing blame the staff). I also cant help but wonder if the huge increase in fuel levies would have been necessary if Qantas had the 777, it would move the same number of punters as the 400 for about 40% less fuel. Oh, silly me there old technology!!

[Shark Patrol]

Metro,

You are clearly a management stooge/apologist who has read and digested the Dixon manifesto and now regurgitates it at every opportunity.

When did Emirates staff last threaten strike action ?

Mate, unions are ILLEGAL in the sandpit and anyone even saying the word is quickly deported. But I'm sure that is what Dixon, Joyce and Clifford would love to see in Australia!! Would you Metro?

[73to91]

I also cant help but wonder if the huge increase in fuel levies would have been necessary if Qantas had the 777, it would move the same number of punters as the 400 for about 40% less fuel. Oh, silly me there old technology!!
and now we have the analysts questioning the rise in levies.
Qantas fare rises not justified, say analysts (http://www.smh.com.au/business/qantas-fare-rises-not-justified-say-analysts-20110420-1dow3.html)

QANTAS'S latest fare increases are excessive and unnecessary, and could drive away customers, the equities research arm of Macquarie Group has concluded.

The rises could backfire on the airline by triggering a fall in passenger demand and could be hard to justify in a price-sensitive market, Macquarie's analysts, Russell Shaw and Sam Thornton, said.

The recent airfare rise - the fifth this year - has pushed fares up between 14 and 17 per cent from last financial year and are probably unrealistic, they argue.

''We doubt these headline prices will stick, as demand is not this strong,'' the analysts said. ''Qantas does not need fare increases of this quantum to maintain existing profitability. We would expect load factors [how full the planes are] to fall back on these higher prices.''

The high Australian dollar was providing a cushion against the rising price of fuel and other operating costs, such as aircraft leasing and foreign airport landing and navigation fees and overseas maintenance.

''Current exchange rates are likely [to be] benefiting the airline more than investors realise,'' they say.

Price-sensitive leisure routes, such as flying across the Tasman, are likely to see a ''crimping'' of demand due to higher prices, but the high Australian dollar could also mean a drop in inbound international travellers, they warn. However, Macquarie maintains its ''outperform'' rating on the airline, with a share price target at $2.78. Shares closed at $2.16 yesterday.

Meanwhile, the Virgin Blue chief executive, John Borghetti, told business leaders yesterday that the airline was still facing challenges on a number of fronts.

It was yet to deliver on reducing its number of brands to one or two, and was still trying to get greater consistency between the domestic and international customer experience.

Borghetti said the company was devoting significant resources to improving punctuality and strengthening the electronic systems underpinning the airline.

Virgin Blue is poised to announce a fourth international partnership, this time with Hawaiian Airlines, and has set its sights on Asian expansion, Mr Borghetti said yesterday. The airline has already announced deals with Etihad, Air New Zealand and Delta, which is awaiting approval by US regulators.

Its shares closed steady at $0.295 yesterday.

[Metro man]

Back in the 1970/80s Qantas could have stood on it's first class safety reputation. "Worlds safest airline", "Qantas don't crash". Some of the recent incidents (A380) couldn't be blamed on QF, but not all. Take away the safety selling point and what's left ?

Whilst unions may be illegal in the sand pit, skilled staff are paid a premium to work there. A QF pilot/engineer/IT manager etc looking at Dubai would find an attractive package on offer, usually considerably better than they would find at home. Just don't rock the boat.

Unions force companies into paying lower level staff more than they are worth and entrench inefficient work practices. There are exceptions such as low cost Southwest Airlines in America which is unionised but profitable, pays well and is a top place to work. Of course it would be nice if everyone from the Chairman to the cleaners got paid top dollar and could do as they pleased with no fear of losing their jobs. Who is supposed to pay to keep the party going when the accounts are in the red ?

Airlines such as SQ, EK and CX operate in a free market. Staff get paid the going rate for their skills. A check in clerk in Hong Kong isn't paid over the odds just because he works for an airline. If you're in management or on the board and you start screwing up and costing the company money you won't be around for long.

These airlines are highly profitable with modern fuel efficient aircraft, award winning service and reliability.

This is what Qantas has to compete with these days and the shrinking market share on international routes shows they're not doing too well.

[QFinsider]

All the baloney about competition on salary of front line employees is merely fuzz.

Operating costs on a modern jet are barely affected by numeration of the crew that operate them. That is their (company spin) and relies on the point that Harbison,Thomas, Kohler Greenwood or Jones in the Chairman's loung don't dare mention that the flight crew costs are less than 5% of the cost of operating the aircraft.

Given on any given weekend aircraft depart with passengers, crew, fuel, food and bags without any of the administration people even being near the office is exactly why Qantas struggles. It is nothing to do with anything than an inept management pursuing a strategy designed by the HR Nicolls society. A strategy Clifford is happy to bring to Qantas, for if the offshoring is continued who knows what would happen to mining.....

[miss_pilot]

metro man,

How productive are they compared to staff in other airlines and similar industries ?

As someone who has worked for a couple of other (international) airlines, and now Qantas - I do more work at Qantas than the others in the same job.

Problem is the competition are able to employ staff on these sort of wages. When did Emirates staff last threaten strike action ?

At the other airlines I've been with the pay has been more with the asian carriers and Emirates. Emirates get very good pay (especially when compared to Qantas).

Back in the 1970/80s Qantas could have stood on it's first class safety reputation. "Worlds safest airline", "Qantas don't crash". Some of the recent incidents (A380) couldn't be blamed on QF, but not all. Take away the safety selling point and what's left ?

So how do you think that every other airline in the world makes any money? You need to have a decent product and then charge the passengers appropriately. Singapore Airlines is one of the most popular airlines for international travel (infact its where most Qantas passengers are going) and yet they are also one of the most expensive airlines to travel with!

A check in clerk in Hong Kong isn't paid over the odds just because he works for an airline

So what your saying is that Qantas Check-in Agents are overpaid? The only staff at Qantas that are overpaid are the dumbass executives.

If you're in management or on the board and you start screwing up and costing the company money you won't be around for long.

... is the way it should be. But at Qantas you would get a few million in bonuses for your 'excellent' work.

These airlines are highly profitable with modern fuel efficient aircraft, award winning service and reliability.

This is what Qantas has to compete with these days and the shrinking market share on international routes shows they're not doing too well.

Exactly! But Qantas has a poor product, fuel hungry aircraft, a constantly shrinking network and are trying to compete with the likes of virgin/jetstar instead of Singapore, Emirates etc. Anyone who thinks that is the recipe for a world class and profitable airline needs to be taken out the back and shot.

[Ken Borough]

Given on any given weekend aircraft depart with passengers, crew, fuel, food and bags without any of the administration people even being near the office is exactly why Qantas struggles.What a load of unadulterated rubbish! Next thing we'll be told with the straightest of faces is that there are indeed fairies at the foot of the garden. Who do you think plan the schedules, sell and issue tickets, specifies the service schedule, arranges fuel and ground handling contracts, rosters crew, pays the bills and your wages etc etc etc?

(The higlighted comments deserve to pass without comment but someone has to support the thousands of good and decent people who do their best to see that the show hits the road.)

[Metro man]

I've got a mate who flies for a government run airline and he loves it. Takes as much fuel as he likes, doesn't have to worry about punctuality. Doesn't care if his employer loses money or the planes are half empty.

Good route network with business class ID tickets. Proper crew meals and uniforms, paid whether he flies or not. No staff cutbacks so everything is done for him from the load sheet to the walk around.

Pay is in the bank each month without fail. I may try and join him.;)

[Ka.Boom]

The Royal Australian Air Force.
M Man you do love the sound of your own keyboard.You seem to have a penchant for pulp fiction

[Oakape]

Airlines such as SQ, EK and CX operate in a free market. Staff get paid the going rate for their skills
Emirates get very good pay (especially when compared to Qantas).
I get sick of people crapping on about how well paid Emirates pilots are. As a 3 year B777 Captain you get around $9,000 Oz per month gross with up to $1,200 extra flight pay in the good months. That's on current exchange rates & makes $108,000 pa for base salary.

I know that that Dubai is a tax free environment & Emirates management certainly look at nett pay at other companies when stating that they are paying market rates, but my opinion is that the tax benefits belong to the pilot as compensation for living in the desert. So the comparison should be gross vs gross. And on that basis, the pay at Emirates is not that great.

[Keg]

Are you going to compare salary packages and include accommodation and utilities or are you going to continue with the delusion that those things aren't part of your package. How does the package look when we look at everything instead of just the gross figure.

It's also worth pointing out that the AUD is at historical highs so in a couple of years when it returns to a more 'normal' level the EK package is going to be a lot higher again.

What was the original discussion about again? :}

[Metro man]

Add a free furnished house with lights and water, childrens school fees, free medical care, transport to and from work, free uniform dry cleaning, profit share, provident fund and it starts to add up.

Emirates simply pay what it takes to crew their aircraft. If they don't offer enough, pilots won't come and flights get cancelled. The package is a reflection of pilot supply.

[Oakape]

I know what you are saying Keg, but I guess it is a matter of an individual's perspective.

Most people wouldn't want to retire is Dubai, even if they could. So comman sense would dictate that you maintain a presence in your home real estate market or at least where you would want to retire, in order to not be priced out of the market, which will generally rise over time. There would be some financial benefit as you could rent the place out, but on the other side there is tenant wear & tear. So the provided accomodation simply allows one to do the job & in my opinion isn't any great benefit.

I know that some have taken the money & purchased in years gone by & some of those have done very well. However, others had suffered serious financial hardship.

As for utilities, well the best information I can source is that that power & water are far more expensive in Dubai than in Oz. Perhaps I am wrong. The allowance is now capped & you are at the company's pleasure as to whether or not the cap will be raised in line with future DEWA price increases. So I consider this as just another thing that allows one to do the job & not of any great benefit.

If that is delusional, so be it.

As for the exchange rate, yes it is at historical highs & it does flucuate. However, if you have a 'life' back home it does hurt financially & the good months don't offset the bad months unless you specifically put money away to cover this. Also, do you want to bet on it going back down any time soon & to what level? With the Dirham tied to the US, the pain could continue for some time to come.

[Oakape]

Metro man,

There are no public schools in Dubai that expatriot children can attend. Therefore one must use the private school system. You don't get an allowance, so those with no kids get nothing. So schooling isn't necessarily a benefit, but rather something that just allows you to do the job, given that you can't live anywhere else & must educate your kids in Dubai. A benefit perhaps if you have kids & were planning to pay for them to be educated in the private school system back in Oz.

As for medical, true, it is free for the employee. However there is a premium to be paid for family members. This has just been increased. Benefits under the scheme are constantly being adjusted & appointments are so hard to get, that family members now can go outside of the company clinic to other approved doctors. The premiums for family are still very low compared to Oz medical insurance, equating to approx $73 Oz per month. So there is some benefit to be had there.

Transport could be considered a benefit as it saves you running 2 cars. However it could also be considered a safety issue given the hours that pilots are working, with a lot of back of the clock departures & arrivals. Perhaps just something else that enables one to do the job.

Sure you get free dry cleaning of uniform items if you can be bothered dragging them to work to put them in & then back again. Frankly, some guys can't be bothered. Also, I believe that it is a tax deduction in Oz, so perhaps not such a hugh extra benefit, eh? Profit share is at the company's pleasure & by no means guaranteed. It is also very variable. A benefit in the strict sense of the word I guess.

As for the provident fund, don't you have super? And you get to keep the company contributions no matter how long you stay. At EK, you only get to keep them in full after you have been there 5 years or more. By the way, the furniture isn't free unless you stay 5 years or more as well.

Look, I'm not saying that it isn't better. However, how much better depends on an individual's personal situation & on what they would consider a plus or a minus. People have this idea that if you go to Emirates you will be living the high life & rolling in cash. People trying to talk up Emirates will make comment to reinforce that belief & those trying to bad mouth it will make comments to the opposite. All I am saying is that it is not quite what some would have you believe.

The Middle East used to be the place to go to makes lots of money, have some fun & then retire early. As with the rest of the world, things have changed & those days have generally gone.

[gobbledock]

What a load of unadulterated rubbish! Next thing we'll be told with the straightest of faces is that there are indeed fairies at the foot of the garden.
Ken Borough, you have been 'off with the fairies' for a long long time.
Go take your lithium pills and be gone with you until the next thread...